Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

CoD ''has almost ruined a generation of shooter players'&#

21 replies to this topic
Cyper
  • Cyper

    Liberty City Lover Since 2001

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2008
  • None

#1

Posted 30 September 2013 - 10:08 AM Edited by Cyper, 30 September 2013 - 10:16 AM.

Some of you have probably already read it. Including myself. But for those who haven't here it is.

 

John Gibson, president of Tripwire Interactive (most famous for the Red Orchestra franchise and Killing Floor) claims that Call Of Duty have ruined a generation of gamers mainly because it takes invidual skill out of the equation. As some people know, Gibson worked with Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad trying to make it more appealing to casual players. I don't know, but it's somehow ironic how he talks about how CoD leaves skill out of the equation, while he (and the rest of Tripwire Interactive) openly embraced certain aspects from the CoD franchsie, such as implementing unlocks, perks, reconplane, faster-paced combat, smaller and more streamlined maps, and so forth. More or less the reason to why I abandoned the Red Orchestra franchise. Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad did never live up to the quality of the first one. Instead it felt like a mix between Red Orchestra: Ostfront and Call of Duty: World at war.

 

 

Anyway, what do you guys think?

 

Is it fair to say that CoD have ''ruined a generation of gamers''?

 

Do games become to easy and forgiving?

 

Discuss!

 

The full article:

http://www.pcgamer.c...ra-2-interview/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[...]one of the things that Call of Duty does, and it’s smart business, to a degree, is they compress the skill gap. And the way you compress the skill gap as a designer is you add a whole bunch of randomness. A whole bunch of weaponry that doesn’t require any skill to get kills. Random spawns, massive cone fire on your weapons. Lots of devices that can get kills with zero skill at all, and you know, it’s kind of smart to compress your skill gap to a degree.

 

So you see these guys—I see it all the time, they come in to play Red Orchestra, and they’re like “This game’s just too hardcore. I’m awesome at Call of Duty, so there’s something wrong with your game. Because I’m not successful at playing this game, so it must suck. I’m not the problem, it’s your game.” And sometimes as designers, it is our game. Sometimes we screw up, sometimes we design something that’s not accesible enough, they can’t figure it out, we didn’t give them enough information to figure out where to go… but more often than not, it’s because Call of Duty compressed their skill gap so much that these guys never needed to get good at a shooter. They never needed to get good at their twitch skills with a mouse.


GtaIvFanboy
  • GtaIvFanboy

    I Have a Foot Fetish

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#2

Posted 01 October 2013 - 04:05 PM

i agree with Michael tbh they are all the same and their sh*t aswell.


Zancudo
  • Zancudo

    Soldier

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • Poland

#3

Posted 01 October 2013 - 04:36 PM

The extreme popularity of Call of Duty ruined the generation, because every game now is all about shooting and destroying.


B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    My Name Is Notim Portant

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#4

Posted 01 October 2013 - 07:14 PM

At least we still had some really good games this gen, I'm satisfied.


Street Mix
  • Street Mix

    Blue lives don't matter

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2008
  • United-States

#5

Posted 01 October 2013 - 11:30 PM

Sometimes people just wanna have fun, not spent dozens of hours in military simulator, gaining some (pointless) skill.

 

This CoD hate is stupid and old.


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#6

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:39 AM

I don't understand the people who say CoD requires no skill. Back when I used to play my average game started out at like a 5-20 K/D ratio and then I slowly worked up to an average of about 20-11 after 4 DAYS of gameplay. So if COD requires no skill how can I be so sh*tty yet there are people who have like 197-0 games? Shouldn't i be just as good as them if it requires no skill??

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#7

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:04 AM

Sometimes people just wanna have fun, not spent dozens of hours in military simulator, gaining some (pointless) skill.

 

This CoD hate is stupid and old.

This. Just so very much this.

 

"Ruined a generation of gamers"? I completely disagree. In fact, I'd argue that the existence of the CoD series has pushed some developers even further to try to stand out from it and appeal to other kinds of players. They talk as if every shooter in existence is trying to copy CoD, when in reality they aren't. Sure, you'll have the brainless studios trying to copy it because it works, and fail miserably. But you'll also have the other studios who have more independence trying to stand out further apart. CoD provides a good frame of reference for both trains of thought. 

 

Any talk of CoD "ruining" the game industry/gamers/shooters is bullsh*t.


Nonpareil1983
  • Nonpareil1983

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • United-States

#8

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:22 AM

It hasn't "ruined a generation of gamers" it's just attracted a bunch of 9-13 year olds who once they grow up a bit will realize how stupid, bland and generic the game is and move onto better games. Kinda like a pre-teen or young teen who likes Lil Wayne, 2 Chainz or Drake, they're not going to like that sh*t for life, just until they mature enough to realize how bad it is.


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#9

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:30 AM

To be honest, I haven't enjoyed shooters since Wolfenstein, and even then they lacked the sort of brutal intensity I remember from the original Rainbow Six.

But twitch shooters have been around forever, too.

ryuclan
  • ryuclan

    Maybe I'll Stay awhile

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2007

#10

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:51 AM

He is correct in saying that COD closes that skill gap with large range of effect weapons and gadgets. This is both a good thing and a bad thing, bu it doesn't mean that COD ruined a generation of gamers. Luckily developers have realized that they cannot emulate the success of the series and are actually trying to make good games now.


Misbegotten cad
  • Misbegotten cad

    Prankster

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#11

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:24 AM

Cant abide CoD meself. shoot, shoot, then shoot some more. man, theyre the dullest games for the dullest gamers!


Cyper
  • Cyper

    Liberty City Lover Since 2001

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2008
  • None

#12

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:02 AM Edited by Cyper, 02 October 2013 - 09:02 AM.

I don't understand the people who say CoD requires no skill. Back when I used to play my average game started out at like a 5-20 K/D ratio and then I slowly worked up to an average of about 20-11 after 4 DAYS of gameplay. So if COD requires no skill how can I be so sh*tty yet there are people who have like 197-0 games? Shouldn't i be just as good as them if it requires no skill??

 

There is two ways to look at that.

 

If you want to really become very good at CoD - then yes, you does indeed have to be very skilled at it.

 

 

But the fact is that CoD is a game where you just can spend a few minutes with and learn it very quickly. The game itself isn't very complex in it's mechanics. The AI is horrible and designed to take your lead. It's like an amusementpark filled with dolls. AI pop up at various places. There is no challange to know what they're about because they are scripted. Missions are extremely scripted so that you wont have to think about what to do because the game is constantly telling you exactly when and where. The game gives you huge amount of aids, second chances, and so forth.

 

If you want to really look at a game that does completely the opposite it's ARMA. 

 

I'm not trying to compare them by who is better, i'm just explaining you the difference.

 

ARMA is complex in it's mechanics. The AI is designed to kill you not to amuse you. If that means losing 40 minutes of progress then it's in your face. If you don't know how to complete a mission then that's your problem - because the game doesn't tell you how to do it because solving the problem is as important as acting. You'll have to think that out for yourself. If you do a mistake, such as getting shot, then there is rarely no second chances. You die. If you're stuck, then game does not give you unfair advantage. It's a trail and error process. How well you plan, shoot, lead your team, survive, itsn't determined by any artificial skills, it's determined by your skills. If you aren't good enough then the game will slap you in the face anyway.

 

Now, i'm not saying that all games should be like ARMA or that ARMA is without problems. What I am saying though is that if arma is extreme in being hardcore, CoD is extreme in being easy.

Even games like GTA V may and is considered as to hardcore for certain players. Because most player's don't like challange. They want ''+50'' to pop up on their screen, and preferly a voice telling them how awesome they are. They don't want to think, try, fail and restart. They want instant action, easy getting, and they want it fast.

 

This is somehow ruining the gaming community...because other companies do exactly the same thing. Just look at complaints about the police in GTA V. Most people don't want challange.


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#13

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:08 PM

"They" don't want to risk it, "they" don't want to think, "they" this bla bla. So? Call of Duty is appealing to it's market, it's share of players, players who are looking for games like CoD. How is that ruining the gaming community? 

 

Most people don't want challenge. Yet challenging games still exist, and will exist as long as there are players willing to buy them. And there will always be players like that.

 

You can't make a comparison between ARMA and CoD, as they are completely different games in the spectrum of FPS. It would be like comparing Mario Kart and Gran Turismo; both games are about racing, yet one is super realistic and the other is not. People who play CoD want to play CoD, they want the gameplay, the challenges (yes they do exist), the community, everything. AI is not the focus of CoD, the multiplayer is. They never made any promises on making their AI revolutionary or something. For a fast paced multiplayer game, they do it damn well right. 

 

 

 

This is somehow ruining the gaming community...because other companies do exactly the same thing. Just look at complaints about the police in GTA V. Most people don't want challange.

 

It really isn't, because 90% of the other companies still do their own thing the way they want. CoD is not to blame if players only want easy challenges and do not want "difficult" games, heck, look at all the other "casual" games with no "challenge" for the mobile platform, which are played daily by more players than CoD. And then look at the numbers of players complaining vs the amount of players GTAV has. I'd wager they make up less than 1% of the total. 

 

So yeah, again, the gam industry/community isn't being ruined by CoD, who are great at what they do. It's being ruined by publishers that force developers to copy what others are doing.


twannie1997
  • twannie1997

    Ready for PC

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2010
  • Netherlands

#14

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:12 PM Edited by twannie1997, 02 October 2013 - 07:14 PM.

Well CoD is not too bad. I actually played some "MW3" on the PlayStation 3. Then out of sudden I get friend requests and lobby invites, because I am "legit Level 64" or "some guy on YouTube who happens to have almost the same gamertag".

 

Then I dropped my K/D ratio from 0.51 to 0.47.

 

And played SUPPORT(!) on Domination.

 

 

EDIT: And please don't say I am a "C0D kid". I am twice the age of an average CoD player and when I get time to reach my trusty ol' PC I play some FPS classics with friends. Like Half-Life (1998) or Counter-Strike (2003).


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#15

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:45 PM

 

Sometimes people just wanna have fun, not spent dozens of hours in military simulator, gaining some (pointless) skill.

 

This CoD hate is stupid and old.

This. Just so very much this.

"They" don't want to risk it, "they" don't want to think, "they" this bla bla. So? Call of Duty is appealing to it's market, it's share of players, players who are looking for games like CoD. How is that ruining the gaming community? 

 

Agree 100% with both of these quotes. Some people want to play games that are simple and mindless but a lot of action and fun, and those people are buying and enjoying Call Of Duty. I do wish they didn't narrow the skill gap quite so much in later iterations, but that's their thing. 
 


RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#16

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:08 PM

 

 

Sometimes people just wanna have fun, not spent dozens of hours in military simulator, gaining some (pointless) skill.

 

This CoD hate is stupid and old.

This. Just so very much this.

"They" don't want to risk it, "they" don't want to think, "they" this bla bla. So? Call of Duty is appealing to it's market, it's share of players, players who are looking for games like CoD. How is that ruining the gaming community? 

 

Agree 100% with both of these quotes. Some people want to play games that are simple and mindless but a lot of action and fun, and those people are buying and enjoying Call Of Duty. I do wish they didn't narrow the skill gap quite so much in later iterations, but that's their thing. 

Well, that doesn't mean that they have to release a new copy-pasted game every year. If they took their time to elaborate a good game inside its FPS genre of "mindless action", innovating, polishing it... caring for it, they would be more respected. Just take a look at how Modern Warfare 4 is still praised.


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#17

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:25 PM

 

 

 

Sometimes people just wanna have fun, not spent dozens of hours in military simulator, gaining some (pointless) skill.

 

This CoD hate is stupid and old.

This. Just so very much this.

"They" don't want to risk it, "they" don't want to think, "they" this bla bla. So? Call of Duty is appealing to it's market, it's share of players, players who are looking for games like CoD. How is that ruining the gaming community? 

 

Agree 100% with both of these quotes. Some people want to play games that are simple and mindless but a lot of action and fun, and those people are buying and enjoying Call Of Duty. I do wish they didn't narrow the skill gap quite so much in later iterations, but that's their thing. 

Well, that doesn't mean that they have to release a new copy-pasted game every year. If they took their time to elaborate a good game inside its FPS genre of "mindless action", innovating, polishing it... caring for it, they would be more respected. Just take a look at how Modern Warfare 4 is still praised.

 

But they are not making games to earn respect; they're doing it to satisfy their players as well as make money. If it keeps selling well every year, despite being a "copy-paste", then it means they are doing their job well. Polish-wise, there's not much else to improve, as the graphics always look pretty great, the game is well rid of game-breaking bugs, all the systems work as intended or are patched quickly with input from the community.

 

Innovation. I see this thrown around a lot when talking about CoD and the way it's developed. What do you consider innovation? What would be innovative in a FPS? New guns? New game modes? Tweaks to the player movement, controls etc? Those are all things that CoD tries to tweak on every iteration. They are trying to innovate in their own right, changing things little by little to make continual small improvements, sort of like Toyota's Kaizen. If they tried something radically different they would risk alienating their player-base, which would cause them to lose sales and kill the franchise as a whole. That is why they don't do anything crazy "innovative", they need to be responsible with their development practices and mostly deliver what the community expects them to do. Sure, some of the developers might wish to change things drastically but can't due to all the expectations. If anything, CoD's lack of "innovation" is the result of being a victim of its success.


Mr Rabbit
  • Mr Rabbit

    Part-time spy, full-time maniac

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#18

Posted 04 October 2013 - 01:30 PM

Developers trying to adopt elements of Call of Duty have ruined their games by doing so, there is no doubt in this, but CoD ruining gamers? Nah. CoD didn't make the people who play it become, well like they are, they were like this before call of Duty. If CoD didn't exist as it does those people may not be in gaming, but they probably would be, just in another game. I like to see CoD as a quarantine thing now, keeps some of the undesirables away from games I want to play.


John The Grudge
  • John The Grudge

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Scotland

#19

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:59 PM

COD doesn't require hardcore skills.  One of it's unique selling points is it's accessibility.  There's nothing wrong with that.  I'm not sure what John Gibson's problem really is because if his product is "hardcore" then it's not really in the same market as COD.  So I don't think it's reasonable to blame Tripwire's woes on COD.

 

With regards to the question are games too easy, I don't think it's an issue.  There's plenty there to cater for those who prefer a steeper challenge.  Many games also provide settings to taylor the games to all skill levels.


MrPeteyMax
  • MrPeteyMax

    Later, losers.

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#20

Posted 04 October 2013 - 03:01 PM

Shooters have become very generic to try and run off CoD's misplaced popularity.

 

The only reason CoD is still going is for cash.


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#21

Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:18 PM

Shooters have become very generic to try and run off CoD's misplaced popularity.

 

The only reason CoD is still going is for cash.

But they haven't. You have the popular ones, which can't change much year to year, and you have the more independent ones (not completely indie), which go for new experiences (Spec Ops, Shadow Warrior, Wolfenstein come to mind). 

 

People talk as if every single shooter currently being developed/released is taking a huge page out of CoD's handbook. They aren't.

 

And misplaced popularity? Pray tell how the popularity of a very well executed and targeted game is misplaced?

 

The only reason any AAA game is still going is for cash. Companies have to support themselves, you know.


B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    My Name Is Notim Portant

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#22

Posted 04 October 2013 - 06:03 PM

People talk as if every single shooter currently being developed/released is taking a huge page out of CoD's handbook. They aren't.

Not a huge page, but still they take pages and ruin their games. OMG lets add health regen, point pop-ups in your face, infinite sprint, bunnyhop that speeds you up, make driving/flying easier. It's immersion breaking. Let's ignore our playerbase and try to steal some COD players. Instead of trying to improve upon a game to make it perfect, developers take the sequels in the opposite direction.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users